Stuart Fraser the head of the planning committee for the Corporation of London writes on this article published in the Times newspaper and also on the future of skyscrapers in London.

CITY BUILDS ITSELF UP TO BE SECOND MANHATTAN
London is planning to soar like its stock market, with proposals to build at least 10 new skyscrapers as part of attempts to retain its current status as the worls financial capital.
In the face of mounting competition from Frankfurt the German business hub and New York, planners want to create a ''new manhattan'' in London to attract the worlds biggest companies.
The corporation of London, the body that governs the city has made a volte-face on its policy on skyscrapers: it now wants to actively encourage their construction wheras in the past it has refused to back them. ''New York and to a lesser extent Fankfurt, are big threats to our position in the future. What we are concerned about is to accommodate as many people as possible in the Square Mile and its fringes'' said Staurt Fraser, chairman of the corporations planning committee.
The city has been critiseised in the past by developers for being too cautious---restricting the growth of tall buildings and allowing 1980s developments in the Docklands to take many tenants.
The City's medieval street pattern and complicated land ownership mean it has been difficult to combine plots of land into big enough areas to accommodate skyscrapers. In addition, builders are not allowed to obstruct views of St. Pauls Cathedral and other landmarks.
''In the past many people gave up parhaps too easily in the face of these challenges'' said Fraser. Now the corporation plans to buy up land and combine it into areas big enough to sell to developers. It has started negotiations with neighbouring London boroughs to identify suitable sites for for skyscrapers that could reach above the city's tallest building, Tower 42, formerly the Nat West tower. As many as 10 towers could be built in 'The City' over the next decade.
''This is the city fighting back against the spurt of development at canary Wharf and Frankfurt. It would be good for London to have some iconic landmark towers for symbolic as well as practical value'' sais Robert Bevan, acting editor of Building design magazine.
Frankfurt recently unveiled a 10 year plan for up to 35 skyscrapers as part of its bid to overtake London as Europes financial powerhouse.
At the moment there are no buildings of more than 20 nstories under construction in the City. But the first building likely to benefit from the new policy is a tower designed by Sir Norman Foster which would be the tallest in the Square Mile.
The building, to be the headquarters of the Swiss insurance company Zurich Re, is planned for the site of the former Baltic Exchange which was destroyed by an IRA bomb in 1992. Foster is also expected to be employed ny insurance company legal and General to design a skyscraper for it's city Headquarters. Plans have already been drawn up for about 5 other skyscrapers in the city.
The burgeoning development in the docklands, centred on the 50 story Canary Wharf tower, Britains tallest building, is offering competition. Two 700ft towers, one designed by Foster, are under construction next to the main tower. There are proposals for three othe skyscrapers in the Docklands.
Outside the City there are at least another 10 buildings in various stages of development. Amongst the most unusual is one for a curved 1,450ft tower called Green Bird on the site of the derelict Battersea Power station, drawn up by Future Systems, which designed the bulbous media centre at Lors Cricket ground.
The Department of the Environment, which would have final say in permission for the building of skyscrapers, said each building would be considered on its own merits. ''The government is neither for nor against high buildings in London'' it said.
Prospects for a high rise London will also have to contend with the future Mayor of London, due to take offie next year(2000). The Mayor will have the power to veto any building over 250ft and must be consulted on such projects along with various conservation groups.
Not all architects are in favour of a high rise future for the capital. Frank duffy chairman of architects DEGW and former president of the Royal Institute of Arcitects said '' My worry is we could be adopting the North american model of high rise offices just as it nears the end of its usefulness. The future could be be all about low rise buildings which allow people to interact more easily.''

"Although the tone and general thrust of the article was correct it did give the impression that we were going to go out tomorrow and build at least another seven skyscrapers. Unfortunately life is not that easy.

As somebody who has worked in the City for well over 30 years I find its blend of old and new and human scale of the building very attractive and unique in terms of a major world financial centre. There are many constraints imposed on us from outside which, bearing in mind our 2000 year history, twenty six conservation areas covering 34% of the City, five hundred and fifty odd listed buildings and two World Heritage Sites, its probably not surprising. these are viewed as national assets and rightly so. Any construction in or adjacent to these areas is subject to review by a number of bodies, including English Heritage and can be ''called in '' by the secretary of state if seen to be contradictory to conservation policy.

Despite these restrictions we have redeveloped over 35% of floor space in the City over the last 10 years and currently have under construction nearly 8 million sq ft of space, equivolent to six canary Wharf Towers. I think it is fair to say that the facts contradict the critics who always like to portray the City as decaying institution.

Tall buildings, or skyscrapers, which I would take to mean around 200metres in height, or around the height of the Nat West tower, have further restrictions to contend with in protected views of St. Pauls from eight vantage points around London shortly rising to eleven. Any contravention of those height limits would automatically trigger formal review and public consultation, something no developer wishes to take on.

In broad terms the east of the City offers the best area for development of tall buildings and the preferred route is to cluster them near existing tall buildings rather than have them randomly scattered across the skyline. I cannot be any more specific than that as obviously any information I give could have implications for property values and sensitive issues for our neighbouring boroughs. I can say that the development of the old Baltic Exchange site may, if submitted, provide a marker for other developments.

Buildings in excess of 200metres I suspect will not be developerd simply because, as with the proplosed Millennium tower, the effect on the skyline for all London brings in a totally new range of problems. We cannot plan in isolation and have to develop policies that will work with our near neighbours as well as the statutory bodies involved with conservation and sustainability.

Undoubtedly the new Mayor for London and Assembly could pose longer term problems as they will already have to be consulted on buildings in excess of 75metres tall or 20,000sq metres in size. This would effect over 50% of our planning applications. The new mayor will have the power currently excersised by the secretary of state, to call in any developments above those limits that do not fit with his/her overall strategic planning policy for London. Let us hope we have a sensible Mayor and not another tired politician with a political agenda that would hurt the City.

Finally i should point out that the Corporation does not develop itself and therefore any proposed new building has to come from the private sector. Not all businesses want vertical space as many find horizontal space easier to plan internal configurations. Even though we would welcome more high buildings it does not follow that they will eventually be built.

Over the next few years I suspect the main debating point will be the virtues of City working against home or mobile working through internet and e-commerce. Interesting that one firm of major accountants, in their audit section has one desk per nine employees! Hot desking and Hot-telling are certainly here to stay and will change demand por property in ways we can not yet determine.

What we have to do is listen to our customers and act quickly and flexibly to changing demands, whatever form they take.

I hope my comments have been of some help

Yours sincerely,
Stuart Fraser"